Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

REVIEW article

Front. Surg.

Sec. Thoracic Surgery

Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1689456

This article is part of the Research TopicInnovations in Uniportal Lung ResectionView all articles

Postoperative Pain Outcomes Following Uniportal Versus Multiportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Provisionally accepted
Fahim  KananiFahim Kanani1*Alaa  ZahalkaAlaa Zahalka1Moshe  KamarMoshe Kamar1Rijini  NugzarRijini Nugzar1Ory  WieselOry Wiesel2Yael  RefaelyYael Refaely3Anas  SalhabAnas Salhab1Mordechai  ShimonovMordechai Shimonov1Diego  Gonzalez-RivasDiego Gonzalez-Rivas4Firas  Abu AkarFiras Abu Akar1
  • 1Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel
  • 2Bar-Ilan University The Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, Ramat Gan, Israel
  • 3Soroka Medical Center, Be'er Sheva, Israel
  • 4Universidade da Coruna, A Coruña, Spain

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has evolved from multiportal to uniportal approaches, theoretically offering reduced postoperative pain through single intercostal space access. However, inconsistent surgical definitions and mixed evidence have limited clinical guidance. Objectives: To systematically evaluate postoperative pain outcomes between true uniportal VATS (strictly defined by ESTS 2019 criteria) and multiportal VATS for lung resections. Methods: We searched five databases from January 2000 to January 2025 for comparative studies of uniportal versus multiportal VATS reporting pain outcomes. True uniportal VATS required a single intercostal incision (2.5-5cm) with all instruments through one port. Meta-analyses were excluded to prevent data duplication. Primary outcome was 24-hour pain intensity. Random-effects meta-analysis calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2 (RCTs) and ROBINS-I (observational studies). Results: Nineteen studies (6 RCTs, 13 observational) comprising 2,544 patients (1,156 uniportal, 1,388 multiportal) met inclusion criteria. Uniportal VATS significantly reduced pain at 24 hours (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.84, p<0.0001), equating to 2.5 points on a 10-point scale. Benefits persisted at 48 hours (SMD -0.80) and 7 days (SMD -0.58). Opioid consumption decreased by 10.6mg morphine equivalents (95% CI -14.8 to -6.4). Heterogeneity was moderate (I²=63.6%). Studies using standardized analgesia protocols showed larger effects (SMD -1.05) with lower heterogeneity (I²=58.4%). Meta-regression identified decreasing effect sizes over time (β=0.05 per year, p=0.024). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness, with all iterations maintaining statistical significance. Conclusions: True uniportal VATS provides clinically meaningful reductions in postoperative pain compared to multiportal approaches when applying strict anatomical criteria. Benefits are enhanced with standardized perioperative analgesia protocols. Implementation should consider local expertise and the observed heterogeneity in treatment effects. Registration: Not prospectively registered; PRISMA 2020 guidelines followed.

Keywords: uniportal VATS, multiportal VATS, Postoperative pain, Lung resection, Meta-analysis

Received: 20 Aug 2025; Accepted: 30 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Kanani, Zahalka, Kamar, Nugzar, Wiesel, Refaely, Salhab, Shimonov, Gonzalez-Rivas and Abu Akar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Fahim Kanani, kanani.fahim@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.